role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

April 6, 2016

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2016-Apr-06 (PDF)

L156 - Wed 6 Apr 2016 / Mer 6 avr 2016

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 6 April 2016 Mercredi 6 avril 2016

Smoke-Free Ontario Amendment Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant la Loi favorisant un Ontario sans fumée

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Fundraising

Fundraising

Fundraising

Privatization of public assets

Fundraising

Fundraising

Invasive species

Concussions

Fundraising

Seniors’ health services

Ontario Trillium Foundation

Minimum wage

First responders

Visitors

Correction of record

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Cancer care

Autism treatment

Refugees

Human trafficking

Jim Freeman

Water fluoridation

Ontario Scottish community

Hospice of Windsor and Essex County

Focus for Ethnic Women

Introduction of Bills

790186 Ontario Inc. Act, 2016

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Food and beverage industry

National Volunteer Week

Food and beverage industry

National Volunteer Week

National Volunteer Week

Food and beverage industry

Petitions

Special-needs students

Services for the developmentally disabled

Water fluoridation

Health care funding

Autism treatment

GO Transit

Ontario Drug Benefit Program

Health care funding

Water fluoridation

Dog ownership

Mental health and addiction services

Home inspection industry

Opposition Day

Government policies

Royal assent / Sanction royale

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Good morning. Please join me in prayer.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Smoke-Free Ontario Amendment Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant la Loi favorisant un Ontario sans fumée

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 5, 2016, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 178,

An Act to amend the Smoke-Free Ontario Act / Projet de loi 178, Loi modifiant la Loi favorisant un Ontario sans fumée.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): When we last sat, the member from Nickel Belt had finished her comments. It is now time for questions and comments.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: It’s a pleasure to rise in the House to discuss our government’s Smoke-Free Ontario Amendment Act this morning. Typically, I think, when we think of smoking, we think in terms of cigarettes, cigars and tobacco but, obviously, it also applies to other products and other substances.

One of those products, one of those substances that is in the newspaper a lot lately and is being regulated in other jurisdictions, is medical marijuana, but because the Smoke-Free Ontario Act is currently in place in the province of Ontario—which I believe enjoys the support of all parties in this House—we also need to bring in a few rules that are going to apply to other products or substances, the example being medical marijuana.

What we believe on this side of the House, simply, Speaker, is that it’s time we expanded the Smoke-Free Ontario Act so that it also allows the government to prescribe products and substances other than tobacco to be subject to the terms of the Smoke-Free Ontario Amendment Act that talks to the no-smoking provisions. With the help of this legislation, the government is going to prescribe, through its regulations, medical marijuana as one of the substances that is subject to the current Smoke-Free Ontario Act’s no-smoking rules. What it is doing, certainly, is it’s taking a piece of what I think is popular legislation and it’s updating it to changes that are taking place in our society today.

What it would mean is that a person who was smoking something like medical marijuana for medical reasons would have to do that in certain places and could not do it in workplaces, could not do it in enclosed workplaces, in public places that are enclosed. The same health risks we recognized with the Smoke-Free Ontario Act should also apply to new substances as they emerge. Really, in my opinion, this is a sensible amendment to existing legislation and should be supported by all members of this House.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further questions and comments?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: First of all, I want to commend the member from the third party on her hour leadoff yesterday. It shows the tenure, experience and passion that she brings to her position. Her constituents are very fortunate. You couldn’t help last evening but be moved by her continuous, consistent effort to make Ontario healthy—and I applaud her for that—from reducing flavoured tobacco to going up against the Liberal government when they wouldn’t be listened to with regard to making Ontario healthier, with regard to being smoke-free, with regard to her comments around the need to address different cancers. Again, I commend her; her constituents are very lucky.

Specifically to this bill, Bill 178, the Smoke-Free Ontario Amendment Act, we have to call it for what it is. This is an effort by a tired government that made a mistake initially, and they’re trying to clean up their act. As they are cleaning up their mistake that they made in their efforts to make Ontario smoke-free, I would suggest to them and invite them to continue cleaning up their mistakes. For instance, why on earth are we affording and awarding proponents of wind farms more opportunity to pollute the countryside with a source of energy that we cannot afford and we absolutely do not need?

It baffles so many people as to why this government continues to choose to make mistake after mistake.

But we have seen this government backtrack before. Just yesterday—apparently, they’re stepping back from their effort to pull more dollars out of seniors’ pockets by backtracking on the prescription directive they were taking. They have time to clean up the Green Energy Act as well. I encourage them to do that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member for London–Fanshawe.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: It’s always a pleasure to stand up in the House and contribute to a debate that our health critic from Nickel Belt has given her lead on, because she does her homework. I’ve been talking to the member from Nickel Belt, and she expresses the concern that this bill is really a correction of an error on this government’s part.

During the consultation process on Bill 45, stakeholders came forward to express their concerns about this very issue, and rather than the government paying attention and listening to deputations and people’s presentations, they decided to shut them out. This is what this government has been doing in many examples, just like seniors’ Ontario drug benefits. They decided that they were going to increase the deductible from $100 to $170 for seniors. What happened? There’s an outcry and this government has now put a pause on it; the same example here. This is really rudimentary, in a sense.

We’re here debating this bill because this government isn’t listening to people when there are consultations.

Now we’re talking about regulating tobacco and prescribed products and substances. We know second-hand smoke is not good for the public at large. Yet now we have to debate this, knowing this is something that could have been worked into Bill 45. It’s disappointing; it’s really disappointing. It’s always important, though, to talk about health prevention, which I know our critic supports very much. Anti-second-hand smoke is making sure we have health promotion in public places.

The effectiveness of this bill is going to be that it’s going to protect employees, customers and bystanders from exposure to second-hand marijuana smoke.

I’m glad we’re debating this bill, but it’s disappointing that we’re debating it because this government didn’t listen to the original Bill 45 consultations on how this important issue should have been incorporated into Bill 45.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I look forward to speaking briefly on this bill, but I think I’ll speak in a little bit more detail later on. I just wanted to highlight that I’m a very strong proponent and supporter of the Smoke-Free Ontario Act.

I have the great distinction of coming from a city, Ottawa, where we were the first city to actually outlaw smoking in public places, in restaurants. That was a very controversial issue at the time. I believe the Attorney General, the member from Ottawa–Vanier, was on city council, and the member from Ottawa West–Nepean, the Minister of Energy, was the mayor at that time.

They really broke ground in Ontario and in Canada, I would say, by being the first jurisdiction to make sure that people were not allowed to smoke in public spaces. It has resulted, I can tell you, in a much healthier city and an environment where people thrive—businesses, in fact, are thriving even more—because they are able to go and enjoy their time. Ottawa then took another big step as a leader by saying that outdoor spaces like patios be excluded as well. Again, that was the right move.

So I’m really happy, Speaker, that under the Smoke-Free Ontario Act we continue to take a leadership role and, through this legislation, are expanding the scope of the legislation from tobacco products to other products as well, so that we can ensure that people continue to breathe and live and enjoy themselves in a healthy environment, and that they will not be exposed to second-hand smoke, not just from tobacco but from other products and substances as well, like medical marijuana.

Of course, we have to respect other people and their rights, but we need to make sure that we do so in a way that we all continue to breathe in a healthy environment. I look forward to expanding a little bit more on this issue when I get the opportunity to talk on this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Nickel Belt has two minutes.

M me France Gélinas: Bill 178, as I said, is a very small bill. All the bill will do is change four words in the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, and add “prescribed products and substances.” Speaker, we just spent seven months working specifically on the Smoke-Free Ontario Act when we were talking about Bill 45. Bill 45 just ended on May 29, 2015. It hasn’t even been nine months since we had worked on this bill for seven months—changed the Smoke-Free Ontario Act—and now we’re back at it again.

Why are we back at it again, Speaker? Because the Liberals refused to listen. People were not only smoking tobacco, Speaker; people are smoking shisha, they are smoking medical marijuana, they are smoking many other products. All of those deputants came and told us this while we were doing the work on Bill 45. But the Liberals knew it all. The Liberals had their way; they had their bill. It did not matter how many amendments we made—over hundreds—they voted them all down. They refused to listen; they knew it all.

Now, nine months later, we have to go back and fix it. It’s not going to cost them anything, but during that period of time, businesses have been set up. People invested their money, time, effort and energy building up those new businesses because we had passed a piece of legislation and the regulation was finally clear. All of those businesses will go under and will have to fail, will have to fold, and this is on their record. They were willing to bail out the gas plants. Will they be bailing out all of those small businesses that will go under because of their lack of listening? I hope so, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate?

Mr. John Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I’ll be sharing my time with the Minister of Children and Youth Services and also the government House leader. It’s a pleasure to speak to the Smoke-Free Ontario Amendment Act.

Before I get to that, I want to say happy birthday to my mother, who is at home; I’m not sure if she is watching. I’ll see you on the weekend, Mom. I love you. My mother is a smoker—sorry, Mom, was—and I’ve outed her. A bit more about that later, but I would like to mention it, because it’s an important part of what I want to talk about today.

Of course this Smoke-Free Ontario Amendment Act is going to provide us with the opportunity, through regulation, to be able to add products to the Smoke-Free Ontario Act to ensure that we treat products that could cause harm to people in the same way we’re doing with tobacco.

I would like to say a couple of words about a few colleagues of mine: Phil McNeely, who was the member from Ottawa–Orléans; the Minister of Energy, Bob Chiarelli, who was the mayor of Ottawa at the time; and Rob Cushman, who was the medical officer of health. I remember the work they did to stop smoking in restaurants. That’s some 10, 15 years ago. At the time, the sky was going to fall. Businesses were going to go out of business, restaurants were going to have a hard time, bars were going to have a hard time. Indeed, the exact opposite happened.

I want to go back to my mom. My mom quit smoking more than 40 years ago. Sorry, Mom. You were 20—not quite. But here’s the thing: Forty years ago, my mother, who is a registered nurse, knew smoking wasn’t good for her and wasn’t good for the family, and so she quit smoking. So did my father at the time. He quit smoking as well. That’s 40 years ago. You’re roughly looking around 1986.

As you take a look at smoking legislation and how it has progressed since that time, how slowly it progressed through the 1980s and through the 1990s and through successive levels of government, and our attitudes toward that, when we all knew that smoking provided a serious, serious health risk—we really didn’t do very much.

It wasn’t until things started to happen at the turn of this last century—in 2001, 2002 and 2003, and then the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, things began to happen. Then my colleague from Ottawa–Orléans at the time, Phil McNeely, the former member, had a private member’s bill banning power walls, which was very important to ensure that young people did not begin the habit of smoking. I congratulate him on that, and the Minister of Health. It was an important measure going forward.

Smoking legislation has been something that’s been incremental over a period of time. I take the member from Nickel Belt’s admonitions—I don’t want to take them to heart; I’m just saying I can understand a certain level of frustration. But I do want to say that over a period of time, successive governments of successive stripes have incrementally improved legislation to protect the health of Ontarians. The finger-wagging is not really helpful, and that kind of goes both ways. So I’m not wagging mine right now, but what I do want to say is we have a bill in front of us that’s going to enable us to be able to—

Interjection.

Mr. John Fraser: It’s not a terrible piece of legislation. There are important measures with regard to protecting people from second-hand smoke. I think we have to take a serious look at vaping. Let’s go back 60 years ago, when people were telling us, “Yes, smoking’s okay. It’s good for you.” We used to have studies that said smoking is good for you. So let’s take a deliberate and thoughtful look at what’s out there and have this legislation passed so we can implement those regulations that we deem necessary to protect Ontarians.

Mr. Speaker, I fully support this piece of legislation and I cede my time over to the Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I’m pleased to join in the dialogue to talk about the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, which will provide that no-smoking rules will apply to products and substances other than tobacco.

I think, as a number of members have commented, things have evolved. Attitudes have changed about smoking over time. When I was growing up, my dad smoked—and he was a firefighter. So that was like double smoke. There was the smoke from cigarettes in the house, and then there was the smell of smoke when he came home from being on call as a Toronto firefighter.

Fast-forward to the year I graduated from university—I think that was 1986—and I started my career as an Ontario government intern. What were people doing in their offices then? Smoking—smoking in Ontario government offices. But that was acceptable. It had been going on for quite a bit of time.

Then we had that transition that banned smoking in workplaces. It was a hard transition for some people, but over time, and especially based on what we learned about second-hand smoke, people got with the program, so to speak, just like they did with using seat belts and so on.

Then, of course, we had the smoking sections. You all remember those: smoking sections in coffee shops and various spots. Even in hospitals there were smoking sections. There were smoking spots even on high school properties. We had a smokers’ corner at West Hill Collegiate in Scarborough, where I went, where everyone went out to smoke. There was a smoking

section outside the building in the Ferguson Block, in the Macdonald Block, where I worked when I first started my career. So things have changed.

Now, of course, things like smoking in cars and other places are generally viewed as completely unacceptable. So times change, attitudes change, and all of this is backed by what the experts tell us, and that’s important.

Now, of course, it’s important to our health. This is a very important piece of legislation to me, as the Minister of Children and Youth Services, because we want all of our children and youth to grow up happy and healthy and not to suffer ill effects of second-hand smoke.

Some people have raised questions about the existing framework but, as I said, things have changed over time. For example, the number of people in Canada who are legally able to possess marijuana for medical purposes under that federal framework is rising, and since the most common method of consumption of medical marijuana is indeed smoking, businesses and employers were grappling with how to provide safeguards for their patrons and for their employees exposed to second-hand medical marijuana smoke.

Also, the exemption we proposed for medical marijuana users under the Electronic Cigarettes Act triggered a number of events that really started a public debate. It started a public debate about the acceptability of smoking or vaping and so on. Of course, we all know, too, that the federal government has committed to legalizing marijuana in Canada, which has heightened further discussion, public stakeholder interest and the controls that governments have to put in place to protect people from potential health harms associated with marijuana, be it medical or otherwise.

So things evolve, things change, and that is what we’re here to do as legislators: to make sure that our legislation evolves and changes, given the realities of what’s going on, not just in Ontario but in Canada, quite frankly, and what the experts are saying.

We do believe it has come to be the time to make some changes to the Smoke-Free Ontario Act that will enable the government to proscribe products and substances other than tobacco that would be subject to the no-smoking provisions. I think Ontarians get that. I think people in my community get that. I see this as very much the evolution of what has been going on in our society, what’s been going on in terms of changing attitudes and what we know in terms of how smoking affects our health outcomes at the end of the day.

Thank you for this time, Speaker, and I look forward to listening to the rest of the debate.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you very much, Speaker, for acknowledging me. I’m very glad to join the member from Ottawa South and the Minister of Children and Youth Services and the minister responsible for women’s issues to talk about this very important bill, Bill 178,

An Act to amend the Smoke-Free Ontario Act.

As I just mentioned briefly before, I’m very proud to come from the city of Ottawa and represent the community of Ottawa Centre, which has taken a leadership role when it comes to ensuring that our public spaces are healthy for everyone, that our public spaces are free from the negative impact of second-hand smoking.

Ottawa is a city that has taken that leadership role through its municipal council in banning smoking in public spaces, restaurants, and in bars, in particular. It was not an easy decision. It was very, very controversial at the time, as many may recall. But it has been a decision that has not only been very popular but, I would also say, it has been a decision that has impacted, in a positive way, the health of the citizens of Ottawa. It has also resulted in businesses growing because they have now been able to attract more people to come in because they have that healthy environment to present.

Similarly, Ottawa most recently took another very important leadership stand—and I’m very happy that it was incorporated in the Smoke-Free Ontario Act—and that was to prohibit smoking in outdoor spaces like patios. We know how important patios are. They are enclosed spaces, and the impact of second-hand smoking has been the same. Again, it was a very popular decision that has resulted in healthier places to live. That ban includes parks etc. as well.

I think the times that we live in right now, the conversation that is starting to take place when it comes to the use and the acceptance of using medical marijuana, which is allowed by law—the conversation that the federal government has embarked on, on taking the prohibition away from the recreational use of marijuana, really makes it imperative that we have this conversation now as to where those products can be used and what kind of second-hand impact it will have on other people, all the bystanders who may not use those products.

So I think what we are doing through this bill is what Ontario should be doing: taking a leadership role. We’re actually really setting the standard when it comes to other products and substances, where they can be used and in what circumstances they can be used in public spaces. We’re not telling people not to use it; that is not our place. What we can do, which is our role as legislators, is to make sure others are protected in our environment and in our community.

That discussion around the use of medical marijuana, or the practice of the use of medical marijuana, and now the potential use of recreational marijuana, makes it very, very important. When I’m speaking to my constituents in my community, this is an issue that is coming up. It’s a conversation that is taking place on a regular basis.

As many know, I knock on doors in my community every weekend on Saturdays. I’m out talking to constituents, and this is a conversation we’re having. And I will also be frank with you, Speaker: You hear both sides. I would say a majority of my constituents in my community of Ottawa Centre very much support legislation like this. They want to make sure that they are shielded from the second-hand impact of the use of medical marijuana or recreational marijuana. They appreciate the leadership role that the provincial government is taking in a proactive manner to ensure that the Smoke-Free Ontario Act is not just limited to tobacco products and that it actually is expanded in its scope.

But I want to acknowledge that there are others who think this may be going too far, especially those who use medical marijuana, because there is a medical reason for them to use it. I acknowledge that, and very quickly, I want to address that by saying of course this bill does not prevent them or prohibit them from using medical marijuana for medical purposes, as has been prescribed to them by their medical practitioner. What it is doing is limiting where they can use that product.

Just as we are concerned about the health of the individual who has been prescribed the use of medical marijuana, we also as legislators have to think about and be concerned with the health of others in their surroundings who would be exposed to second-hand smoke. We know that our restaurants and our public places are open to our children, open to other elders and seniors—all kinds of people, vulnerable or not. We have a duty and an obligation to make sure that we look to their well-being and health as well.

In my opinion, this bill is doing something very simple. This bill is doing something thoughtful. What this bill is doing is taking leadership in a very real discussion that is taking place in our country, and that is to make sure that, just like the kind of regime we have created around smoking in public spaces, we extend that prohibition to other products and substances as well, such as the use of marijuana, medical or recreational—whenever that second part becomes legal.

Speaker, I think this is the right thing to do. We know the benefits from the Smoke-Free Ontario Act and how it has resulted in a healthier province. I think we stand on solid ground from an evidentiary point of view, that we are making the right public policy choice. I really encourage all members to support this bill, because I think Ontarians support this approach. I look forward to voting in support of this bill, and I urge other members to do the same.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Jim McDonell: I’m proud to rise to bring the thoughts of my constituents in Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry. Bill 45 was rushed through with a lack of consultation, and now we see the results of that: the government coming back to fill in some of the holes. We see that in so many bills in this House.

I sit on committee; I think we’re going through Bill 172. There’s a perception of wanting to listen if stakeholders come through, but, really, there are a lot of important amendments that are being pushed out of the way. You have a government that doesn’t seem to want to listen. It shouldn’t take an embarrassment to force them to come back, with people screaming and, in this case, laughing at some of the mistakes that have been made here.

We see it. I think the member from Huron–Bruce talked about the Green Energy Act and the promise in my riding and across the province that they would listen to the local groups. It was an oversight; they were taking a lot of pressure. “If you’re an unwilling host, we won’t go there.” Of course, in North Stormont and in Glengarry–Prescott–Russell: two installations in areas that were unwilling hosts. Communities that put their faith in what the Liberal government said of course have been burned. It’s too bad.

We’ll go through a lot of important legislation over the next few weeks. The cap-and-trade bill is being pushed through. I hope they listen to some of the stakeholders that are coming through and clearly saying they’re worried about the effects on our economy and our ability in the future, if we don’t get it right, to actually make a difference. They’re pushing it through, and we see that it’s clearly only a tax because they’re out of money. That shouldn’t be what this bill is all about. It should be about reducing carbon. We’ll work to see that our stakeholders are heard when we move to that bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Hamilton Mountain.

Miss Monique Taylor: It’s always a pleasure and an honour to be able to stand in this House and to have a few moments to comment on a government bill that has been brought forward. It’s been said many times already in this House that this bill is only before us because of the government’s lack of due diligence when it came to making sure that it got the first bill, Bill 45, right.

This bill adds four words, “prescribed products and substances,” to Bill 45. Quite frankly, it’s just an amendment to the bill that was before us.

It was interesting to listen to some of the government members speak to this bill. The Minister for Children and Youth Services talked about how this bill is important to make sure that people are happy and healthy—and the ill effects of second-hand smoke. She talks about people being happy and healthy. I wish she would feel the same way when it came to children over the age of five who suffer from autism.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: That’s not what we’re talking about this morning.

Miss Monique Taylor: But it is a health consideration, Minister.

I’ve obviously picked a bone, Speaker. As you can see, the autism effect on people in this province has filtered long and far. I hope she’s read the letters that I have delivered to her so that she can hear from families first-hand of their situation of happy and healthy, and how they’re feeling about that. We know very well that IBI is most effective between the ages of two and four, but it does not mean that it is not effective at all after the age of five.

Interjections.

Miss Monique Taylor: Speaker, this is fantastic to have this much—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Point of order, Minister?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: On a point of order, Speaker: I’m completely unclear about what the member is talking about and what that has to do with the bill at hand, which is the Smoke-Free Ontario Act. I’m happy to talk to her about her other issues any time, getting a briefing, but I don’t know what this conversation has to do with the bill in front of us.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The minister is correct.

Your time is up. I would suggest to the member from Hamilton Mountain that she stick to the agenda. All members know, if they have a problem, they can stand up on a point of order at any time. Instead of yelling at the Speaker, they might want to stand up.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I did.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): You did finally, after a while.

Anyway, questions and comments?

Hon. Michael Coteau: It’s great to be here this Wednesday morning. I would love to come into the Legislature at 9 o’clock in the morning one day and actually have the opposition stand up and say, “You know what? You guys are doing a great thing.”

This bill is so simple. We’re talking about smoking and we’re talking about tobacco-based products. We’re talking about keeping people healthy here in the province of Ontario. If the opposition can’t see clearly—well, you know what? I don’t know what they’ve been reading or what they’ve been—

Interjections.

Hon. Michael Coteau: I think this is a pretty simple piece of proposed legislation. This is about keeping Ontarians healthy; it’s about keeping Ontarians safe. To add to what the House leader was saying about going into local schools and talking to young children: When you go into the schools and talk about the role of an MPP, I always use the smoke-free Ontario example as one of the things we can do as lawmakers here in the Legislature to keep people safe. It wasn’t too long ago in this province that you could have children in a car and actually light a cigarette. It’s this government that made the changes to stop that.

We’re just adding to our Smoke-Free Ontario Strategy here in the province of Ontario, yet the opposition stands up and they’re talking about anything but a smoke-free Ontario. It’s time for them to recognize the hard work that’s taking place on this side of the House and the great work that’s taking place to ensure that young people and people of all ages in the province of Ontario have the opportunity to stay healthy and to be safe, and to continue to build an environment where we protect each other.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I want to point out to the minister that it is the job of the opposition to point out the weaknesses in legislation, not the attributes. It is our job to do that. If we didn’t do it, we wouldn’t be doing our job.

But I do want to pay reference to the member from Ottawa South. He spoke this morning, wishing his mother a happy birthday. I want to chime in there—and it’s got nothing to do with the bill, so I hope nobody interjects—that today would also be my mother’s birthday. I will speak to the bill. My mother would be 92 today, if she was alive, but she died in 1974 from lung cancer. Ironically, because there are no guarantees, I’m certain that if maybe my mother smoked, she might have died younger than 50. But she died at the age of 50 from lung cancer, never having smoked in her life.

She was just one of those people who was very unlucky. She probably worked herself to death, raising 14 kids, one of them being me, which was probably not the easiest thing to do.

I did want to reference that today, April 6, 2016, would be my mother’s birthday. I will speak to the smoking aspect of it because, yes, there was smoking in our house and there was smoking in our place of business, the hardware store, which my mother laboured at for many years. When my dad was here in the Legislature, she was there at the hardware store all the time. In those days, the funny thing was, you’d be serving a customer and the customer and the person serving them—one of our people on the floor—would both have cigarettes in their hands or in their mouths and would be talking.

The place was full of smoke all the time. Could that have had an impact on my mother’s health? It’s certainly likely that it did.

Any time we do things to make people healthy, I’m going to be in favour of it, but I will also take the opportunity to point out the weaknesses, the reasons or the problems behind the government’s legislation. Thank you for this opportunity this morning. Happy birthday, Mom.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): One of the three speakers has two minutes. The government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I want to thank the member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry, the member from Hamilton Mountain, the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport, and the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke for their remarks. Not all of them were on point, as the Speaker noted. Nonetheless, I want to acknowledge the very important role the opposition has to play to make government accountable and point out where things can be improved. Of course, we’re debating a particular bill, not every single issue under the sun. There are moments to do that as well.

But in terms of this bill, I’m hearing a general consensus—or, by not hearing talk about this bill, that there is a general consensus—that this bill is in the right direction, that this bill is addressing the right issue. That was very clear to me from what I heard from other members: We have a real issue at hand. Albeit, this is a very small bill and makes changes to three words, but they’re three important words that are being changed.

It is expanding the scope of the Smoke-Free Ontario Act to ensure that the Smoke-Free Ontario Act does not just apply to tobacco products. It is making sure that the principles that are enshrined in the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, which are now universally accepted, which are now universally hailed in this province, which people actually are benefitting from and are getting healthier as a result of—what this bill is saying is, “Let’s take that scope and now expand the same principle to other products and substances.”

What do we mean by other products and substances? Right now, we mean the use of marijuana, be it medical marijuana, which is legally allowed by the federal government, or the potential use of recreational marijuana, which is being considered by the federal government as well. I think this is a logical step. This is the right step, and it’s going to result in an even healthier Ontario, which is our mandate to do.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate?

Mr. Randy Hillier: Before I debate Bill 178 and give evidence why I will not be supporting Bill 178, I should take this moment to say that it is Tartan Day in Ontario, and we need more tartans in our Legislative Assembly from the looks of things today. I do see my colleague from the great riding—with Scottish heritage—of Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry. He’s got a bit of a tartan tie on there, I would think. Anyway, it’s a pleasure to be here on Tartan Day and wearing both suspenders and tie in tartan today.

Back to the bill: Bill 178 can’t be discussed singularly; it must be talked about in conjunction with Bill 45. When we look at these two pieces of legislation, what I see is an attack on compassion. I see an attack on caring. I see an attack on people’s health and I see an attack on reducing harm. That’s what I see with these two bills, and I want to explain why.

Bill 178 now captures medicinal marijuana, or cannabis, under the Smoke-Free Ontario Act. Bill 45 also captures these things—vaporizers. These are now considered tobacco products under this Liberal government. What they basically have done is they’ve said, “We are legislating that apple trees are now orange trees in Ontario.” The member from Eglinton–Lawrence, I believe, brought in a bill the other day to recognize a fruit as Ontario’s vegetable. Evidence and reason are out the door with this Liberal government.

Let’s put this in perspective. There are approximately 25,000 people taking medicinal marijuana in this province to alleviate the pain and suffering that they’re experiencing due to illness or disease; they’re alleviating their pain and suffering. Medicinal marijuana is recognized and prescribed for that function. It’s everything from PTSD to epilepsy to people on chemotherapy. These people are enjoying a somewhat better life, less pain, because of medicinal marijuana.

This bill now ostracizes and unduly restricts where they can take their prescription medicine, but it also prevents them from using less harmful methods, such as a vaporizer, to take that prescription. So we’re taking away the harm-reduction component with Bill 45, and then we’re also taking the cannabis itself and saying, “If you want to take your prescription, you must do it in the same place where people are smoking.”

Just picture this. If you’re in public housing, if you’re in a condo building, a college dorm, if you’re visiting in a hotel and you take prescription cannabis, you will not be allowed to do that. You can’t do that in public housing; you can’t do that in condos; you can’t do it in a hotel or a motel with this bill. You certainly can’t go to a cannabis or vape lounge, because they won’t exist under this bill. So where do you go?

Here in Toronto, right at the moment, we have 13 vape lounges where people are taking their medicinal marijuana, often in devices something like this, in a less harmful fashion. Those vape lounges will now be extinct. They will not be allowed to operate.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Just a friendly reminder to the member: You can’t use a prop. I let you go a couple of times already. Just keep it on the desk, please.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Thank you for those words, Speaker. I’m not using it as a prop; I’m trying to use it as an instructional. Does that look like marijuana? Does that look like a cigarette? It’s an electronic device. It’s not a prop, but I will not touch it and I will not hold it up. But it is important for members to understand what this legislation does.

So 25,000 medicinal marijuana users will now have to go outside and congregate with smokers to ingest their prescription.

I also want to say this: I’ve heard of a whole bunch of anecdotal stories and suggestions that people are smoking their medicinal marijuana on public transit, in taxis, in airplanes and in bars. I’ve not seen any evidence. I have never seen anybody smoking medicinal marijuana in any of those places—never. If somebody has, please jump in on the debate in the questions and comments and explain how often that has happened or where. I know of one case—one case only—where somebody wanted to use their medicinal marijuana and smoke it in a public restaurant. That was at Gator Ted’s. There was a human rights action over that.

People are respectful. People are not out smoking medicinal marijuana in our public schools, or in our bars or restaurants. I take trains. I take planes. I go to restaurants. I have never seen that happen. So what problem are we actually solving with Bill 178? What problem? There’s one example, Gator Ted’s.

But in the process, we’re doing so much harm. We’re preventing people who are suffering from using in less harmful ways. We are putting them as outcasts.

I think there are probably a number of people in this House, a number of people in this province, who believe that medicinal marijuana is just some pretext to use it recreationally. I can tell you—and I’m sure there are many people in this House who know people who are suffering debilitating diseases and injuries—they are gaining some sense of a quality of life, being able to take prescription marijuana.

I think this is important to emphasize: People are more than their illness and people are more than their disease. They’re not just a cancer victim. They’re not just a person who suffers from epilepsy. Whatever the affliction is, they still remain a person, a person who requires social interactions, who requires that interchange between people.

Bill 178 and Bill 45 ostracize those people. They make pariahs of those people. It’s like we’re going back to the 1800s or the 1700s with lepers, with Bill 178 and Bill 45: If you need to have a prescription, we’re going to put you over in that corner where society can’t see you and doesn’t want to see you. That’s not caring. It’s not compassion. Obviously, under this bill, these vape lounges, these cannabis lounges, places where people can socialize and take their prescription, are outlawed. They’re extinct.

I’ll say to you, Speaker, that instead of promoting harm reduction, this Liberal government is promoting harm with Bill 178—promoting harm, not harm reduction. Instead of promoting health and healthy living, they’re promoting poor health. They’re promoting pain. They’re promoting suffering for these people.

Interjection.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I see the Minister of Tourism thinks that it’s funny that people are suffering; it’s funny that people are suffering and that they will not be able to find a warm place in January to take their medication. There’s nothing funny about this, nothing funny at all, in my view, for those people who are suffering.

Bear this in mind as well: That vaporizer that I showed earlier is now deemed a tobacco product as well, and the product inside of it, whether it be a marijuana extract, a caffeine extract or a vanilla extract, it’s all deemed to be tobacco. An apple tree is now an orange tree. A fruit is now a vegetable in Ontario with this Liberal government.

Why would we prevent somebody from taking their prescription in a less harmful fashion? It ought to be obvious to the members on the Liberal side that the Supreme Court ruling just last year that stated our laws must accommodate and allow people to take their prescription drugs in the least harmful or in a less harmful fashion—our laws have to allow that. This law prevents it. It’s absolutely contrary to a Supreme Court ruling.

I have no doubt that we will see Bill 178 and Bill 45 in front of the courts very soon. They will be challenged; they will be struck down. They’ll be struck down because this Liberal government is not cognizant or compassionate about people. They’re also not cognizant of the very laws that they make and the rulings that our courts bring out.

Here’s an interesting research paper that was done. It was republished today in Reason magazine. The title is Lying About ... E-cigarettes Is Like Blocking Access to Clean Heroin Needles.

It goes on to say that this is “a blistering indictment of lying in the name of ‘public health.’” Look at that: “lying in the name of ‘public health.’”

Interjections.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I see that the Treasury Board thinks this is all funny as well, and that it’s a laughing matter when we’re talking about people’s health and the government’s undue restriction on allowing people to ease their suffering. It’s unfortunate that the Deputy Premier thinks this is a laughing matter.

It goes on: “In a blistering indictment of lying in the name of ‘public health,’ two prominent tobacco researchers slam medical organizations and government agencies for suppressing information about the huge difference in risk between electronic cigarettes....”

The two authors wrote in the International Journal of Drug Policy. Lynn Kozlowski is a public health professor at the State University of New York in Buffalo, and David Sweanor is an adjunct law professor at the University of Ottawa. They both have come out and said that government is lying about public health.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Sit down. The member will withdraw what he just said. Well?

Mr. Randy Hillier: I withdraw.

Anyway, it’s a research paper. Let me just read a little bit more about this, and I’ll try to make sure that I include only parliamentary language out of this synopsis.

“Ignorance about the relative hazards of e-cigarettes, which are ... something like 95% safer than” conventional smoking, “is also widespread, thanks largely to pronouncements from government agencies and anti-smoking groups that are unhelpful at best and downright false at worst.”

I would encourage members on the Liberal side, and also members on this side, to actually take a look and read and research this on their own. Don’t just accept the talking points from their party. Do some independent research, and we’ll see.

How do they reconcile this fact that medicinal marijuana is a recognized prescription medicine, but at the same time, they’re going to unduly limit, restrict and prevent people from taking it? As I said at the beginning, where is this great outcry? Where is this great body of evidence that people are smoking medicinal marijuana on the planes and the trains and the automobiles? I haven’t seen it. I’ve never seen anything in the papers about somebody offended because somebody was smoking medicinal marijuana on a plane or on a train or on a bus. I haven’t seen those stories.

I have seen one story—one story: Gator Ted. It was funny; it was interesting. In that Human Rights Tribunal case, the Human Rights Tribunal said they had to allow this gentleman, Gator Ted, to have access to his medicinal marijuana, even if it contravened provincial law.

Interjections.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I find it interesting that the Liberal ministers find humour and find this all funny when we’re debating Bill 178, when we’re debating a significant bill. It’s a short bill, but it has powerful consequences when it’s combined with Bill 45. If Bill 45 didn’t exist, you might go for it, but reducing and eliminating harm reduction through Bill 45 with Bill 178 is an absolutely compounding and conflicting set of laws that will be challenged.

I had a group of people in to see me—the Cannabis Friendly Business Association, the vape association, the Canadian Vaper, the Tobacco Harm Reduction Association of Canada—thousands and thousands of people, and I know that this Liberal government is receiving thousands and thousands of complaints on their actions. They’re going to drag taxpayers’ money through the courts, and they’re going to lose. They would be wise to sit back and take a look at people and act in a caring and compassionate manner.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’m pleased to listen to the comments from our colleague from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington. He raised some important points—some maybe a little bit off the mark. Nevertheless, I think the overall theme of his discourse was that the government was inept and, frankly, incompetent in the development of this bill initially, when it was Bill 45, that incarnation of the bill. There’s been no contrition. What we’re hearing is laughter from the government side.

They’re laughing at the fact that they’re wasting time in here, laughing all the way, knowing full well that their incompetence has led to a waste of time in this Legislature that should be used to talk about substantive issues that support our communities—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Stop the clock. I guess I don’t have to tell you, do I? No yelling across the floor. Thank you.

Continue.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: When they start yelling like that, you know you’ve hit a nerve, frankly.

We’ve seen this time and time again. What could they have done to avoid this? Maybe some discussion, some consultation with those stakeholders who clearly knew you were making a mistake. They cut off debate. They called closure on the bill, didn’t listen to the public because, in their world, in their bubble, Liberals know best. They’re going to do it with campaign finance reform. They’re going to mess it up again, undoubtedly. We know that. They’re too busy with their fundraisers. They’re busy selling off public assets. They can’t even get the basic fundamentals of this bill right. There are four words that they’re changing here: “prescribed products and substances.”

What a complete failure that we’re in this House right now, having to watch them, without any contrition, laugh and laugh as we try to fight for real substantive issues in this House. It’s a sad day, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Hon. James J. Bradley: The legislation that’s before us, I believe, with a few exceptions, from what I’ve heard in the debate taking place, is going to be supported by all three of the political parties in the Legislature, if not by all members. I think that’s because there’s a recognition that this legislation is needed.

First of all, I think people were pleased that, overall, the legislation dealt with the traditional smoking that we saw happening in the province, and there’s been a significant change taking place over the years. Those of us who are sports fans, for instance, will recall that we would go into an arena and the announcement would be made, “No smoking in the arena proper. Smoking in corridors and lobbies only.” If you went out there, you didn’t have to smoke, you simply had to breathe, and you’d be the same as a person who would be smoking.

There have been many changes taking place. Some of the arenas, when they banned smoking, which I thought may never happen, in places like the old Maple Leaf Gardens, for instance, now don’t even allow, in many cases, people to go outside to smoke between periods. We recognize as well that when we used to go into bars or restaurants or even on airplanes, smoking was allowed, and now it is not. This transformation is taking place.

The bill addresses some circumstances that may not have been contemplated. I think there’s a time to spend a lot of time on some legislation before the House. I’m a person who believes that we should rate the various bills with the opposition and say, “We’ll spend a lot of time on this bill, and not so much time on another.”

I think this bill lends itself, with the support of the three parties, to passage in the House so that we can deal with other matters which are of great significance—not suggesting this isn’t—and I hope we will be able to do that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. John Yakabuski: It’s a pleasure to follow my colleague from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington this morning. The one thing I’ll say about my friend from LFLA: He’s never afraid to stand in this House or anywhere else and be the voice for people who feel they don’t have a voice. In our democratic system, I think that’s extremely important. Sometimes it’s not easy to paddle against the current. I’ll say to my friend Mr. Hillier that he has never been shy about paddling against the current, even if sometimes that’s a rapid he’s trying to go against the flow on.

Having said that, he raises a significant, important issue. No matter what piece of legislation we bring forth as government or in opposition, whatever piece of legislation comes before this House, there’s always an element about that piece of legislation that will be viewed or can be shown in a very empirical way to be restrictive for one group or another group of people.

I happen to be one of the people who generally take the position that the benefit of the greater number—the benefit of all, as we say—trumps the rights of the few. Having said that, I think it’s important in our system that there are always people who are willing to take the other view and say that the rights of the few cannot be trumped simply because a piece of legislation is designed to be for the good of all. That is something that my colleague from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington has never been shy about doing, and I take my hat off to him and congratulate him for taking sometimes an unpopular stance on a challenging issue.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Before I move to the next question, I’d like to remind members that when they come into this House and leave it, they’re supposed to acknowledge the Chair. There’s a particular couple who haven’t been doing it all day.

Questions and comments?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: It’s a pleasure to rise to address the comments made by our colleague from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington. I always have to have a note in front of me. I have to tell the member from that riding that there are a lot of people who find it very difficult to get all the way through that title; no question about it.

There are two elements here, Speaker. One is that when it was first announced by the parliamentary assistant that people would be able to smoke medical marijuana in many places where they wouldn’t be able to smoke tobacco, that very day I got blasted by cab drivers, restaurant owners and others who said, “I’ve got nothing against people smoking marijuana. It’s going to be legalized. It’s probably a good thing.” But they didn’t want to smoke the second-hand smoke. It’s as simple as that.

So I think it makes sense that we look for the way that we can accommodate and assist people who need that medication for their health, for pain control or for seizure control, but it also has to be very clear that people who don’t want to be smoking things on a second-hand basis should not be put in a situation where they are. It’s not a good thing. There is going to have to be regulation and control on this.

The second thing I want to say, though, is that my colleague from Nickel Belt spoke very well yesterday for an hour and others have had an opportunity to address a similar line of argument today. We went through this with Bill 45, which left out four critical words in that bill, and we’re back here again. Really? She also made the point that shisha, the smoking of water pipes, is not regulated. Frankly, it’s something that is now being addressed here in Toronto. I think it will be addressed in other municipalities.

We’re—sorry, not we; the government, the Liberals, are once again doing exactly what they’ve done within the last 12 months: ignoring a huge issue, thinking that they have figured it all out and it’s going to be dealt with. It ain’t gonna be.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington has two minutes.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I want to thank the members from Essex, Danforth, the minister without portfolio and my colleague from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke for their comments. They were thoughtful and it was enjoyable to hear their comments.

I do want to say one thing about Bill 178 and Bill 45. I agree with the member for Danforth. There have to be greater restrictions than what are in place at the present time. But this government has gone to the complete extreme. Now, it is closing down those few social locations for people to take that medicinal marijuana—the vape shops, the cannabis lounges. Those fall under this as well.

I’ll grant you the taxis; I’ll grant you the buses and all those things. But there needs to be accommodation, and this bill does not provide accommodation. It takes all accommodation away.

Contrary to the minister without portfolio and his comments—it appears that he believes that this bill is going to fix the problems of the 1970s, as he speaks about Maple Leaf Gardens and the smoke-filled corridors of Maple Leaf Gardens. Well, we know that Maple Leaf Gardens doesn’t even exist anymore—

Mr. Todd Smith: It’s a Loblaws.

Mr. Randy Hillier: It’s a Loblaws—but we also know that none of our arenas, none of our sporting venues, allow for smoking in them anyway. We got rid of those things.

Bill 178 can’t be used to address the problems of the 1970s. It needs to be used to address the circumstances and the conditions that we face today. Medicinal marijuana was also not available in the 1970s, but it is available today. We need to accommodate people and help them alleviate their pain and suffering.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): It being close to 10:15, this House stands recessed till 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 1012 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It is my profound pleasure to introduce today a series of guests who have come to support Rowan’s Law. Brian Stemmle is a retired Canadian skier who went to four Olympics for our country, and we’re very pleased that he’s here. We also have John Goodchild. We have Rowan Stringer’s parents, Kathleen and Gord Stringer, and then someone who needs no introduction in this room, probably one of Canada’s greatest hockey legends of all time, Eric Lindros. I’d like to welcome them to the assembly.

I have a little bit more to add, because at 11:30 today in the side room of the legislative dining room, I’m inviting all MPPs to come and meet with Brian Stemmle as well as Eric Lindros, to talk about concussions, have a little bit of light lunch and get some autographs.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Not to take anything away from this wonderful day that you’ve organized, but coming from Brantford, I thought, “Wayne Gretzky’s not a bad player too.”

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: But he’s not here.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I just thought I’d put that in.

The Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.

Hon. Reza Moridi: It’s my great pleasure to welcome Sharon Maloney, CEO of Career Colleges Ontario, and John Nelson, board chair; Luisa Tanzi, treasurer; and Tim Heggie, executive committee member of Career Colleges Ontario.

Career colleges are a great part of post-secondary education in our province of Ontario. Please join me in welcoming them.

M me Gila Martow: Bonjour, monsieur le Président. Everybody here knows the French words “déjà vu,” so it’s a bit of déjà vu. I get the chance again today to souhaiter la bienvenue à M lle Amanda Simard. Elle est conseillère de la municipalité de Russell dans la circonscription de Glengarry–Prescott–Russell. Elle est ici dans la galerie des membres. Bienvenue.

Hon. Jeff Leal: In the public gallery today are students from my alma mater in Peterborough, Trent University. We have Ashley Fearnall, Belicia Davila, Emmanuel Gasore, Justin Thompson, Chanté White, Erin Ford, Rebecca Hubble, Avori Purdy, Jessica Cole, Annette Pedlar, Theresa Benedict, Veronique Boucher and Kristina Dergacheva—very nice people from Trent University.

Mr. Yvan Baker: I’d just like to welcome Dane Grgas, who’s here from my community. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: I would like to welcome, in our Legislature, on behalf of the Honourable Charles Sousa, MPP for Mississauga South, page captain Sohan Van de Mosselaer. His mother and grandmother are here: Dr. Mili Roy and Jaya Roy. Welcome to the Legislature.

Mr. Todd Smith: I’d like to welcome Daniel Perry, a Loyalist College student, who is joining us here again today. Being from Belleville, I would also like to point out that Bobby Hull wasn’t too bad either.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m sorry I started it.

Further introductions?

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I’d like to welcome friends from Career Colleges Ontario who are with us today: George Hood, J.P. Roszell, Paul Kitchin, and Adriana.

Mr. Yvan Baker: I’m not sure if they’re here yet, but I just wanted to welcome the students from Kipling Collegiate Institute, who are from my riding of Etobicoke Centre and visiting Queen’s Park today.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: It’s again a great pleasure to welcome in our Legislature, on behalf of Mike Colle, MPP for Eglinton–Lawrence, page captain Maya Treitel. Her mother, Wendy; father, Natan; and sister, Gabriel are here, and also her grandparents Donnatee and David. They will be in our public gallery today, and I would like all of us to welcome them.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, I’ve been informed that, apparently, today is your birthday. If that’s the case, I want to wish you happy birthday from all the members. Happy birthday, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): As you get older, it’s really not all that important.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It beats the alternative.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Being on the right side of the grass is a good thing.

Further introductions?

Mr. John Vanthof: I’d like to welcome a couple of our friends from the OFA. Everybody knows Don. Welcome to Queen’s Park once again.

Oral Questions

Fundraising

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. Despite the Premier’s new-found interest in fundraising reform, it does not fix the years of shady quotas and tainted money—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): My standing is a signal that I’m not going to tolerate outbursts.

Please finish.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Despite the Premier’s new-found interest in fundraising reform, it does not fix the years of shady quotas and tainted money that has been raised by the Ontario Liberal Party. The people of Ontario need to know if government contracts and grants were traded for donations to the Ontario Liberal Party.

Mr. Speaker, just as Quebec did, will the Premier immediately call a commission of inquiry? Yes or no?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please.

Before I go to the Premier, I’m just going to let you know that I reviewed yesterday, and we seem to be weaving in and out of questioning one’s motive. I’m going to caution everyone to make sure that those questions are directed in a way that does not impugn motive. Maybe, if I have to, I’ll review what that means. But I’m sure that all members would appreciate either side not to impugn a member, because that’s not parliamentary. I’ll just give you that as a caution, and I’ll listen very carefully.

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I would just take the Leader of the Opposition back some years, actually, to 2007. We’ve already undertaken a number of initiatives to make elections more accountable and transparent. In 2007, we introduced third-party advertising rules for the first time. We introduced real-time disclosure for political donations. Other provinces are catching up with that.

I announced last June that we were committed to making further changes, which we’re doing. I announced yesterday that our government plans on introducing legislation on political donations this spring, including a transition away from union and corporate donations. I look forward to the meeting with the opposition leaders on Monday.

I’m leading by example. I’ve decided to immediately cancel private—

Interjections.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think you might want to hear this.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Answer.

Interjections.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I said—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Sorry. Start the clock.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Sorry, Premier, your time is up.

Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Premier: The question was about a commission of inquiry, like Quebec’s. This is not a laughing matter. We have seen corruption charges laid against a senior Liberal operative. This government has had four active OPP investigations against them. Now it appears to the public that the government has traded favours for fundraising.

Mr. Speaker, if this government has nothing to hide, will the Premier call a commission of inquiry to investigate the connection between donations and the government grants and policy changes? It is the right thing to do, Mr. Speaker, if the government has nothing to hide.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. Be seated, please. Thank you.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Just to complete what I was saying, I’ve made a decision to immediately cancel upcoming private fundraisers. In fact, Mr. Speaker, as I told the media this morning, I cancelled one tonight. The money will go back to the people who were going to attend. Ministers can do small, high-value fundraisers, but there will be stipulations on that, Mr. Speaker. First of all, the event will be publicly disclosed before it occurs, in a way that the media would consider legitimate.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, ministers will not be fundraising with stakeholders solely of their own ministry. We’re making those changes immediately. I look forward to the conversation with the leaders of the opposition parties on Monday as we talk about what the transition should look like.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that we have all been functioning under the same rules. We have all been following the same rules, and now we’re going to change those rules.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, back to the Premier: Political fundraising is legitimate; using government decisions to fundraise isn’t. Cancelling the secret fundraisers is nothing more than a PR stunt. No other party does secret, private fundraisers. This is a PR stunt to divert attention from the perception that the Liberal Party has become synonymous with backroom money and backroom deals. The—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Now, this is the point that I was making: We’re getting dangerously close to imputing motive. However, given the circumstances, I’m going to try to ask all members to stay away from that. If it gets too close, I’m going to pass the question.

Finish, please.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, the government can heckle and scream as loud as they want. They may have an aversion to facts, but the reality is the Liberal Party has become synonymous with backroom money and backroom deals.

The people of Ontario want the truth to come out, Mr. Speaker. Will the government do the right thing? Will the Premier, if she has nothing to hide, immediately call a commission of inquiry? It is the right thing to do; please do the right thing.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please.

Hon. Brad Duguid: You’re the dealmaker, Mr. Flip-flop.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m not amused with what I just heard.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, our government believes that creating a fair and just society is the highest responsibility that we have here. Part of that means that the tax code is fair to Ontarians.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Oh, come on. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Deputy Premier?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Interestingly, the very first private member’s bill that the Leader of the Opposition tabled when he came to this House was one that gave a tax break to Ontario’s wealthiest citizens by abolishing the tax act, Speaker. That’s the kind of regressive tax policy that Republicans are famous for south of the border.

Speaker, because of the rules we introduced in 2007, we can actually look at the facts to see who donated to the leadership campaign and whether those donations may have had any influence in that very first act in this Legislature. So, just pointing out the facts, the member received—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Time’s up.

New question.

Fundraising

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, my question is once again to the Premier. The Hydro One sale is a perfect example of why we need a commission of inquiry. When the Liberals decided to sell Hydro One, the syndicate made $29 million. The syndicate then held a reception to give the Liberal Party $165,000 in donations.

Now, with the Liberals’ latest announcement, they are selling 10.9 million more shares to that same syndicate, not the general public. Mr. Speaker, did the syndicate ask for this sweet deal at the last Liberal thank-you dinner?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: As I was saying, the Leader of the Opposition started his career at Queen’s Park by advocating for a reduction and elimination of estate taxes. Speaker, the member received $10,000 from Michael Vukets and Associates. They specialize in estate planning. He received $25,000 from Canaccord Genuity Group, a wealth management company, and he received $5,000 from SJC Investments, an international investment company.

Because of the changes we made in 2007, this information is available for all to see. But it is passing strange that the very first action that this leader took when he became a member of Legislature was to advocate for tax breaks for the very wealthiest Ontarians.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. Order.

Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: I fail to understand, when we’re talking about Liberal donations, why they’re talking about the Liberal increase to the death taxes. It’s about muddying the waters and diverting the conversation.

I realize the Premier may not want to be on the record on this. It’s easy to pass it off to another minister. It’s a difficult conversation. It looks like a publicly owned asset is being sold for private Liberal donations. One-time Liberal gains equal years of financial pain when we lose the revenues from Hydro One. Why can’t the syndicate buy their shares, like every other person or company in Ontario? It must have been because of those secret, private dinners.

Mr. Speaker, was the $165,000 in donations to the Liberal Party in exchange for access to Hydro One shares? I would appreciate if the Premier would go on the record herself, rather than avoiding the question.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. Thank you. Start the clock.

Deputy.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Well, Speaker, what I would appreciate, and what I expect all Ontarians would appreciate, is if the Leader of the Opposition followed the lead of the Premier and cancelled the private fundraising dinners that he has planned.

I can remind you: April 19, you will be at the Albany Club with 10 people—only 10 guests—at $10,000 a plate. I would hope that you would cancel that dinner. There’s another one, on May 4, at Barberian’s, a bargain-basement, $5,000-a-plate dinner.

I do not understand how the Leader of the Opposition, with a straight face, can call on this government to make changes when he is not prepared to walk the walk himself. Speaker, I’m calling for the Leader of the Opposition to cancel those dinners.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary.

Is their definition of private fundraisers—is this where they discuss the terms of the contracts?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order, please. I could try to ask the members for their co-operation because I would possibly look at it as a birthday present.

I’m allowing this to–and–fro to happen because I think you need to have an opportunity to get it out, except to say that I really do need to hear what’s going on.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m in the middle of a sentence—in the middle of a sentence.

Finish, please.

Mr. Patrick Brown: This government insists that they make policy free from the influence of Ontario Liberal Party donors, yet we see $165,000 dinners secretly raising money for a party, from a group getting preferential access to the Hydro One shares. This arrangement is the very thing the people of Ontario have come to despise about this government.

Only a public inquiry will clear the air, but until the Premier agrees to that, the people deserve an answer to the following: How much money will the syndicate be pressured to donate after this next payday, and what will be given in exchange?

Once again, we would like the Premier on the record rather than passing the buck. Do the right thing: Answer the question on the public inquiry.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. Thank you.

Deputy?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Mr. Speaker—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me. I’m not impressed.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Mr. Speaker, the innuendo of the Leader of the Opposition is totally unfounded.

The broadening of the ownership of Hydro One has been complex and multi-stage. It has been essential for the government to have financial and legal advisers working on this project to ensure the interests of Ontarians are protected. By having the strongest professional expertise, we’re ensuring Ontarians receive maximum value for their investment. The underwriters, the financial institutions that we used, which we’ve engaged for this offering, have been selected in an open and transparent manner to ensure that the process has been done in a very important and very crucial way.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Answer?

Hon. Brad Duguid: We’ve engaged the former Auditor General of Canada, Denis Desautels, to develop a competitive process for selecting the lead financial—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you.

New question.

Fundraising

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: My question is to the Premier. The Members’ Integrity Act states: “A member of the assembly shall not accept a fee, gift or personal benefit that is connected directly or indirectly with the performance of his or her duties of office.”

The Legislative Assembly Act states that a member shall not “knowingly accept or receive ... any fee, compensation or reward for or in respect of the drafting, advising upon, revising, promoting or opposing any bill.”

The Liberals have created a system where ministers have to use their cabinet portfolios to raise money to meet fundraising quotas set by the Premier and the Liberal Party of Ontario. Has the Premier received legal assurances that the cabinet members’ fundraising quota does not break the Members’ Integrity Act?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let me once again just say that there has been a set of rules in place, and all parties have followed those rules. We’ve followed them to the letter, Mr. Speaker.

But now we’re going to change the rules. In fact, I’ve been clear that we were going to change those rules. I said last June that we were on track to change those rules. We’re going to bring in legislation in the spring.

I look forward to the opportunity to speak with the leaders of the opposition parties to get their input. I think it’s an important part of the process to hear from them, because quite frankly, up until a couple of days ago, I didn’t hear anything from the leaders of the opposition. I started saying we needed to do this last June. I haven’t heard anything from the leader of the third party or the Leader of the Opposition on the specifics of how they would move to make a change to the rules.

I look forward to the conversation on Monday.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: The Ministers of Energy and Finance wrote the legislation to sell off Hydro One. Then they hired a group of bankers and lawyers to help them actually sell off Hydro One. Then the ministers hosted a fundraiser with those very same bankers and lawyers. The group of bankers and lawyers benefitted from the sale; the ministers benefitted from the fundraiser.

Can the Premier not understand how this is wrong and may very well violate the Members’ Integrity Act?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, I’ll just go over the changes that we are going to be bringing forward and the changes that we’re making right now, because as I said, we’re going to bring in legislation in the spring. That legislation will include a transition away from corporate and union donations. It’s on that transition that I’m interested in hearing from the leaders of the opposition parties, because as I say, we have all been following the same rules. We are all going to be making a transition to a new set of rules.

I’m making some immediate changes now. I’ve made the decision to immediately cancel upcoming private fundraisers that I attend. In fact, as I told the media, I cancelled one tonight. The ministers will still be able to do small group fundraisers—high-value fundraisers—but there will be two stipulations. One is that it’s publicly disclosed before the event, not after the event, as the Leader of the Opposition suggested, and the ministers will not be meeting solely with stakeholders—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you.

Final supplementary.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: I’m concerned that ministers assigned fundraising quotas by the Premier are using their portfolios to raise money for the Liberal Party. As such, I will be making—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Deputy House leader, second time.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: —a complaint to the Integrity Commissioner.

Will the Premier agree to participate and ensure that her whole cabinet agrees to fully participate in any investigation?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: As the Premier has already said, we’ve taken a number of steps to make elections more accountable and more transparent, and to make donations more transparent. In 2007, we introduced third-party advertising rules for the first time and introduced real-time disclosure for political donations.

The NDP has been critical of our attempts to actually ban corporate and union donations. That’s kind of surprising because that’s exactly the kind of reform that the NDP in Alberta made. They introduced

an act to renew democracy in Alberta. She introduced legislation, and then it was sent to committee for public consultations.

Here in Ontario, we’re actually consulting before we draft the legislation, before we introduce the legislation, because we think it’s important that we get this right. That’s why the Premier has invited party leaders to come and have the conversation before the legislation is introduced, unlike the NDP in Alberta.

Privatization of public assets

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: The question is again to the Premier. This week, the Liberals agreed that they made a mistake by doubling the cost of medication for seniors in Ontario. Will they also admit they made a mistake by selling Hydro One and stop the sell-off of the next batch of shares?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We are committed to investing in infrastructure in this province. It is not possible for Ontario to continue to lead and to take its strong and rightful position in the global economy if we don’t invest in infrastructure.

Now, I know—and it is surprising—that the third party, the NDP, has not taken a strong position on investment in infrastructure. It’s the kind of thing that one would have expected from the NDP, that they would support investment in public transit and investment in roads in the north and investment in communities so that they could upgrade their infrastructure. That’s not the position that the NDP has taken, which is surprising, but it is our position. We need to make those investments. The broadening of the ownership of Hydro One—one asset—in order to invest in new assets is exactly what’s needed in this province at this time.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: No one believes that selling off Hydro One is going to help our infrastructure. Everyone knows that it’s going to put us in a worse position. The Financial Accountability Officer has stated that very clearly. No one buys that story.

The Liberals made a decision to hurt over a million seniors in Ontario. They backed away from that decision. Selling Hydro One won’t just hurt seniors, it will hurt people across the province.

Of course, selling off Hydro One does help the donors who attended the fundraiser with the Ministers of Energy and Finance. We understand why you’re doing it, but why is the Premier backing off from a decision that hurt over a million seniors, but doubling down on a decision to sell Hydro One, which will not only hurt the seniors, but will hurt the rest of the 14 million people who live in this province?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I travel this province and talk to community leaders, one of the very top priorities that community leaders have is investment in infrastructure. It doesn’t matter whether I’m in a small northern community or a large, growing urban community in southern Ontario, the reality is that municipalities have not been able to make the investments that they need—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, second time.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: They need the provincial support to invest in infrastructure that, quite frankly, was neglected for decades. So we’re making those investments. It is a fundamental part of our economic plan.

I would say to the third party that we are leading Canada in terms of economic growth this year. We have been, for two years running, the leader in North America in foreign direct investment. The investments we’re making are bearing fruit, and that’s good for jobs today and it’s good for the economy going forward.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Selling 15% of Hydro One was bad. Selling 30% is worse. It’s going to end up costing us billions of dollars, which will mean cuts to infrastructure and public services—not building them up—not just today, but for future generations. Eight in 10 Ontarians are against this sell-off.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Beaches–East York, second time.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: It’s bad for managing our electricity system. It will hurt the fight against climate change.

I know that the Premier is having a rough week, but will she make it better for all of us, and herself, and agree not to sell off any more of Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It’s very surprising to hear the NDP say that investment in public transit will hurt greenhouse gas emission reduction. It is absolutely, absolutely flawed logic.

The reality is that those are the kinds of investments that we absolutely have to make. We have to promote the investment in infrastructure that will allow electric vehicles to flourish in this province. We have to invest in more public transit so that, as part of our climate change reduction strategy, we actually see those reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Quite the contrary to what the NDP is saying, the fact that we are making those investments is part of our economic plan that is going to allow us to thrive in a clean, greener economy, something they should be supporting.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. Thank you.

New question.

Fundraising

Mr. Todd Smith: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and happy birthday.

My question this morning is for the President of the Treasury Board. Last week, we learned that a treasury board president was engaged in questionable practices regarding potential influence peddling—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member will withdraw.

Mr. Todd Smith: That was in Quebec, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Oh. Well, you mention Quebec if it’s there.

Interjections.

Mr. Todd Smith: Sam Hamad—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): It doesn’t matter. I asked you to withdraw.

Mr. Todd Smith: Withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Now you can correct yourself, if you wish.

Mr. Todd Smith: Thank you very much. That was in Quebec, and Sam Hamad was forced to resign.

Last week, we learned that $165,000 changed hands between the Minister of Finance and the syndicate that underwrote the Hydro One sell-off. Yesterday, we learned that those same banks are getting a private opportunity to buy an additional $10 million in Hydro One shares—10 million Hydro One shares. Let me correct my record again.

Speaker, how does the minister explain this $165,000 kickback from the big banks?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member will withdraw.

Mr. Todd Smith: Withdraw.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure.

Hon. Brad Duguid: That kind of question is just irresponsible. The fact of the matter is, this entire process is being done by third parties. There is no involvement whatsoever by the government in this process.

In fact, the process is completely being reviewed by the former Auditor General of Canada, Denis Desautels—I don’t know if I’m saying his name right, Madame Meilleur.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Close enough.

Hon. Brad Duguid: He has been involved in this from day one.

It has been developed as a competitive process, and they’ve selected lead financial firms to carry it out. The member knows this. It’s totally arm’s-length to government. We have no input into that process whatsoever.

So stop the allegations that are totally unfounded, and be responsible in your questions about a very important matter of public policy.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Todd Smith: The facts are the facts, and the facts are out there on the table, in this case. It’s nice to know that the big banks feel that they’re getting their money’s worth from this government. If this type of thing occurred with a contractor, he’d be up on fraud charges. If a lawyer did it, he’d go to jail. When Sam Hamad did it in Quebec, he had to step down as the Treasury Board president. He did the right thing in Quebec.

Can the Treasury Board president explain why it’s more acceptable in Ontario than Quebec for a minister to be involved in a scheme like this one certainly appears to be?

Hon. Brad Duguid: If that is not borderline slanderous, Mr. Speaker, I don’t know what is. You have absolutely no grounds to make those kind of allegations. You’re making it up as you go along—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Finish, please.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Mr. Speaker, the member’s wild allegations are a smear to the former Auditor General of Canada, Denis Desautels, who was overseeing this process. It would indicate to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is completely being done in a third-party fashion. The government and our members have no involvement in this whatsoever.

It’s totally irresponsible for you to make those kind of allegations. I’m really shocked because I know this member. He does have integrity, Mr. Speaker. For him to make those kinds of allegations, I have to suggest that he’s really on the borderline of slander, and his integrity, I think, can be questioned by those types of—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you.

New question.

Fundraising

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is to the Premier. The Premier has acknowledged her front bench have fundraising quotas that they have to meet. The bigger the cabinet portfolio, the bigger the quota. A suspicious person might wonder—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The deputy House leader is warned.

Finish, please.

Ms. Catherine Fife: The bigger the cabinet portfolio, the bigger the quota. A suspicious person might wonder how much of a cabinet assignment is based on merit and how much is based on a talent for fundraising.

Does the Premier take fundraising ability into consideration when she’s assigning high-profile positions on that front bench?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what I have said, and that is that we have all operated under a set of rules.

I am incredibly proud of my whole team. Every member on these benches is part of a team. We all do our bit. They are talented, intelligent people, and I am lucky to have them as my colleagues. I respect every one of them. They all do their bit, as I expect members on the other benches do.

Part of our job is to raise funds so that our political parties can operate. We’ve done that with integrity. We’ve followed the same rules, and now those rules are going to change, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Catherine Fife: There is a huge difference between my $20 spaghetti dinner at the Legion that’s open to everyone and the Hydro One—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order, please.

Finish, please.

Ms. Catherine Fife: —and the Hydro One privatization donation party that the Liberal government hosts. There’s a big difference.

Last week, the Premier was asked about ministerial fundraising quotas and she said, “You’ll have to talk to the party.” But, of course, the Premier isn’t just the Premier. She’s also the leader of the Liberal Party.

Was the Premier involved in setting her cabinet ministers’ fundraising quotas?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Well, it seems the member of the third party has forgotten that her party was part of an ethics probe into a $10,000 exclusive fundraiser they held in December. I’m not sure what was on the menu, but I bet it wasn’t spaghetti.

“Despite banning corporate donations in Alberta, Horwath asked Premier Notley to attend her fundraiser, marketed at corporations. Many of the corporations had business interests in Alberta.” That’s from the Alberta Ethics Commissioner’s report in March. “The event even marketed that Premier Notley would attend and resulted in the highest-reported ticket price for an NDP fundraiser ever. The president of the Ontario NDP, Karla Webber-Gallagher, who was interviewed in the probe, confirmed that Bruce Logan, Horwath’s senior adviser, made personal calls to prospective donors before putting anything in emails.”

Invasive species

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: Through you, Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry. Invasive species pose a serious threat to our natural resources, our biodiversity and the economy of Ontario, significantly impacting delicate ecosystems and costing tens of millions of dollars every year. This is well known by Canada’s top experts, including especially biology prof Shelley Arnott at Queen’s University.

Managing the impacts of species like zebra mussels in Ontario is estimated to be about $75 million to $91 million per year. The city of Toronto estimates that it has spent at least $37 million over the last five years to cut and replace city-owned trees killed by the emerald ash borer.

Species like these and many others have the potential to do long-term damage to the economy of Ontario. Minister, can you please tell us what steps the province is taking to manage invasive species?

Hon. Bill Mauro: I want to thank the member for the question. She’s raised the example of zebra mussels. It’s a great example of how if we’re not proactive when it comes to the issue of invasive species, there’s significant ecological and economic devastation that can come to the province of Ontario.

We know in all likelihood that zebra mussels were introduced through ballast water in international tankers, but we also know there’s an opportunity for success because there has not been another waterborne invasive introduced to Ontario waters in quite some time—in fact, in a number of years. That’s primarily due to the changes in the rules that have been made by the federal government when it comes to the discharge of ballast water.

Being proactive is very important. In that regard, we take great pride in being the first and only jurisdiction with stand-alone legislation in Canada. That legislation has received royal assent. We’ve also invested in an invasive species centre in Sault Ste. Marie, which I had the opportunity to visit some time ago, that’s doing great work on this file. More will be done.

I look forward to the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: Thank you to the minister for his answer.

Preventing invasive species from arriving and becoming established is critical in our fight against the growing threat that invasive species represent to Ontario. Species that are at risk of being introduced into our province, such as the Asian carp, have the potential to do long-lasting damage to our economic and environmental systems, such as impacting our $2.2-billion recreational fishing industry right here in Ontario.

Once established, it becomes more difficult to eradicate invasive species. Therefore, a rapid and coordinated response, a response that can reach across borders to new invasive species, is required.

Minister, can you tell us how the Invasive Species Act and other initiatives from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry allow the province, its partners and the public to address emerging invasive species?

Hon. Bill Mauro: Again, I want to thank the member for the question. She raises the example of the Asian carp. That is an invasive species that, if it reaches into Ontario waters, will be able to and will impact with untold devastation on our recreational fishing.

In that regard, I travelled to Chicago in early January. We had an opportunity to visit basically where the beachhead is being established to try to prevent the introduction of Asian carp into Ontario waters. We had opportunities to meet with the Army Corps of Engineers, which is doing the work and leading the charge on this, share with them best practices from Ontario’s side and engage in whatever we can do to support the work that they’re doing there.

We’ve already been working very closely with the Canada Border Services Agency in this regard, to try and do what we can at the border, but it’s important for everybody to know that we’re doing what we can. We have visited in Chicago to see what’s going on there. We need to do all that we can. Our legislation will enable us, through powers contained and regulations that are coming, to do everything we can to prevent the introduction of Asian carp into Ontario waters as best we’re able.

Concussions

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is for the Minister of Sport. Today, we have with us Canadian hockey legend Eric Lindros and four-time alpine skiing Olympian Brian Stemmle, who have joined us at Queen’s Park to call for the passing of Rowan’s Law so that Ontario will become the first jurisdiction in all of Canada to pass concussion legislation.

Severe brain injuries can cause depression and mental health issues. As we saw with Rowan’s passing, they can even cause death. We cannot afford a delay in the passage of Rowan’s Law because we need consistent protocols for treatment and, in the case of sports, the return to play. Depending on how you answer this, Minister, we may have a chance at getting Eric Lindros to play in the Legiskaters game on April 19.

Can the minister outline the steps he’s prepared to take in order for Rowan’s Law to become a reality?

Hon. Michael Coteau: Well, Mr. Speaker, if he’s playing, I don’t want to be in the net.

This is a very serious issue. I want to take a moment to thank the member opposite, the member from Ottawa South and the member from Kitchener–Waterloo for their leadership on this file because it’s such an important issue. Safety in sport, without question, is something that our government takes very seriously.

I’d like to take a moment also, Mr. Speaker, to thank Rowan’s parents, who are here, and, of course, Mr. Lindros and his wife, who are here, and the advocates who are supporting this initiative.

Rowan’s Law is the first step towards increasing awareness, prevention, identification and management of concussion in sport. Like the member opposite said, this would be the first initiative in the entire country, the first strategy put in place to take on this very serious issue. I know the House leader would like to speak on this issue in the follow-up in regard to the process moving forward.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you.

Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I appreciate the support that the minister has given me and the Stringer family throughout this process. I’m sure he can agree, with the recent events in the NHL last week and the movie Concussion exposing the NFL this past winter, that it’s now clear that Ontario can and must take a leadership role in concussion awareness, research and treatment. Rowan’s Law will be the coordinating voice that will bring together experts to implement a series of coroner’s inquest recommendations from Rowan Stringer’s death from second impacts that are sustained by multiple concussions.

Would the minister consider hosting a round table with possible committee appointees this month in advance of the committee bill passage?

Hon. Michael Coteau: To the House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Again, I want to thank all the members who have been very actively working on this very important issue. I want to especially acknowledge Rowan’s parents, who are here as well.

As we know—and I think the member who asked the question knows very well—there is a process by which the House leaders work in a very collaborative fashion when they discuss all matters that are brought before this House, including private members’ bills. This is an issue that we’ve had the opportunity to speak about, and I’m sure there’s going to be more opportunities when we’ll be speaking about this bill and other important private members’ bills before this House.

I very much look forward to having those constructive conversations so that we can find a way of passing this groundbreaking legislation. Of course, I look forward to that opportunity of speaking with my respective House leaders on this issue and other issues when it comes to making sure that all those relevant matters come to this House.

Fundraising

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question to the Premier: Last December, one of the banks that ran the initial sell-off of Hydro One promoted a $7,500-per-person fundraiser, offering private face time with the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Energy. One of the emails promoting the event specifically mentioned the Hydro One sale. The fundraiser attracted a select group of Bay Street players who stood to profit from the Hydro One sale, raising $165,000 for the Liberal Party. Later today, the Minister of Energy and Minister of Finance will announce the further sell-off of Hydro One. Should the public see the fundraiser as the quid and today’s Hydro One sell-off as the quo?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Mr. Speaker, with that line of questioning, I would echo words that you often say: We’re getting into a race to the bottom, with those kinds of unfounded suggestions and allegations, which are completely contrary—and the member knows this—to the way that this entire transaction is taking place.

This government has taken a very thoughtful and strategic approach to ensure the best value for the benefits of Ontarians. That’s why the allocation of these offerings is in the hands of professionals. That’s why it’s third-party. That’s why our ministers and our government do not have anything to do with the way this transaction rolls out. I know the member knows that. I’m a little surprised he would try to allege something that simply is not true. I don’t think it’s a fair thing to say in this Legislature. I don’t think it’s a fair allegation.

Mr. Speaker, I think I’ve explained that the process is completely unfettered of any kind of political involvement.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: This whole sell-off is a race to the bottom, the whole damned thing.

Only the Liberal Party would try to distract from what has been seen as a pay-to-play fundraising scandal by showing everyone exactly why it is a scandal. Last December, Hydro One profiteers gave the Liberal Party $165,000. Today, those same profiteers stand to make millions from the sale of Hydro One.

Nobody believes this is in the public interest. The Financial Accountability Officer has said this is not in the public interest.

Will the Premier finally put the interests of Ontarians ahead of her Bay Street friends, her donors, and stop the sale of Hydro One?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please.

Minister?

Hon. Brad Duguid: The interests of Ontarians rest firmly in our ability to invest in the infrastructure across this province. That means building public transit. That means building roads and bridges—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Finish, please.

Hon. Brad Duguid: That means investing in core infrastructure from one part of the province to the other.

The key here is we’re willing to make the decisions we need to make, to make those investments. The folks on the other side of this Legislature do not have the courage to make those investments. They talk the talk, but they don’t support us when we build this province up, when we build public transit, when we build roads and bridges, when we build core infrastructure like water/ waste-water.

We’re proud of the investments we’re making: $160 billion over the next 12 years, the biggest investment in infrastructure in the history of Canada. You can’t make those investments if you don’t have the—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. Be seated, please. Start the clock.

New question.

Seniors’ health services

Mrs. Cristina Martins: My question is—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Hold on. Try it again.

Mrs. Cristina Martins: My question is for the minister responsible for seniors’ affairs. I know that in my riding of Davenport, I have a large group of seniors who are actively involved in the community, and it’s important for me to know that they remain healthy and active.

As a matter of fact, when the minister recently spoke about his constituent Maria, it reminded me of my constituent Gloria, who too is a very engaged and active senior in my own riding of Davenport. Just like Maria, Gloria too wants to know what our government is doing to improve the lives of seniors.

Minister, as you know, Ontario’s seniors have worked hard to make our province great, and we owe it to them to continue providing the services they rely on, especially at a time in their lives when they need it most.

Recently, during the 2016 budget deliberations, I heard from a number of seniors, including Gloria, with concerns about the costs of prescription drugs and copayments. I understand this government has been listening during the consultation process of the 2016 budget deliberations.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister inform the House of what is being done—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you.

Minister responsible for seniors.

Hon. Mario Sergio: Let me thank the remarkable member from Davenport for a good question.

Speaker, when someone reaches the age of 65 years old, he or she is automatically eligible to receive prescription drugs covered through the Ontario Drug Benefit Program. Seniors would pay a yearly deductible or copayment of $100, and then some $6.11 for dispensing fees.

The 2016 budget, Speaker, addresses this very big issue in a very positive way. Low-income seniors no longer will be required to pay the $100 copayment or deductible, or the dispensing fee of $6.11 will drop to $2. What this means is that 170,000 low-income seniors will be saving $130 a year. This goes a long way in helping our seniors.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Cristina Martins: I want to thank the minister for his response. I know that Gloria and the seniors in my riding of Davenport will be pleased to hear of the changes that are being made, and I’m pleased to learn that lower-income seniors can apply for help with these costs through the Seniors Co-Payment Program. I know that in my riding of Davenport, this will be welcomed by many who fall into this category.

It is helpful to know that if the 2016 budget is passed, low-income seniors that fall under the Seniors Co-Payment Program will pay no yearly deductible, and the copayment drops up to $2 for each filled prescription. That is great news and I know many will be happy to learn of these changes.

It is important to know that our seniors are being taken care of. I applaud the minister for the great work he has done as the minister responsible for seniors’ affairs and his efforts to make sure these changes were made.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister please inform the House about what he is hearing from seniors and what recent measures this government is doing to further assist seniors?

Hon. Mario Sergio: Speaker, I want to thank the member for the question again. Let me say that I speak regularly to seniors, and especially in the last week I have been enjoying speaking to a lot of seniors. But when I finish speaking to my seniors in the riding of York West, telling them of the positive measures that would improve their lives with the content of the budget, then they end up putting on a nice big smile.

I tell them that they will be saving $170 for the shingles vaccine. I keep telling them that they save $70 for the elimination of their hydro debt retirement charges. I tell them that they save $30 from the emissions test, and 135,000 seniors will be paying 50% less when they go to the hospital parking lot. This helps our seniors in a big way.

Also, there’s an infusion of $75 million over three years in community-based residential hospice and palliative care. On this side of the House we always try to improve the quality of life for our seniors.

Ontario Trillium Foundation

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is for the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport. Speaker, hard-working volunteer groups are in shock after the Ontario Trillium Foundation suddenly suspended its capital grant program. This funding is vital to Legions, community centres and other facilities as it literally keeps the roof over their heads. Now this government has funnelled every cent of Trillium’s $25-million capital program into the Ontario 150 program. That’s right: A minister who has millions of dollars for Pan Am executive bonuses and manicures for athletes now doesn’t have a penny for the dedicated volunteer groups who rely on Trillium.

Speaker, is this government so broke that it can’t fund a new program, one that represents 0.02% of its $136-billion budget, without stealing from vulnerable volunteer organizations?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock.

Again, the tenor of the comment was really not conducive to a proper question when it comes to accusations. I’m disappointed, but I’m just going to let it go and warn the member that if anything else like that happens again in his supplementary, it will cost him his question.

Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport.

Hon. Michael Coteau: I want to start by saying the Ontario Trillium Foundation is one of those organizations that’s not only recognized in Ontario as one of those great organizations, but throughout this country and internationally. We’re very proud of the work they do.

Mr. Speaker, this is a government that has invested $1.4 billion through Trillium since it has come into power. That’s a significant amount of money that has been contributed and distributed right across our province. If you look throughout the Legislature, I know that Trillium has an influence in each of our ridings and makes such a huge difference in making sure that we continue to grow and build Ontario to the place we think it should be, and that is being one of the best places on the entire planet to live.

In regard to funding, if you look at the amount that was provided to Trillium last year and the amount that’s going to be provided this year, it’s actually an increase, so I don’t know what the member is upset about. We’re going to use Canada 150, and using money to invest in infrastructure is what this government’s all about. We’re very proud of our record when it comes to Trillium.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Steve Clark: I really don’t understand the minister’s spin. If it was such great news, why was it announced at 4:53 p.m. on the Thursday before the Easter weekend?

I know why. It was to bury the fact that they dealt a devastating blow to community groups for whom OTF capital funding is a lifeline. It’s more evidence of the price we’re all paying for this government’s waste and mismanagement. This happened so suddenly, Speaker, that applications were already submitted for the upcoming intake, but the government just dumped them and the thousands of volunteer hours to prepare them right into the shredder.

Speaker, to the minister: Does my Legion have to buy a $6,000 ticket to a Liberal fundraiser to get access? I’m going to ask the minister, will he admit that he’s wrong, and will he reinstate the OTF capital grants program to help those groups whose future he’s put at risk?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. Thank you.

Minister.

Hon. Michael Coteau: The member opposite knows clearly that the Ontario Trillium Foundation is an arm’s-length organization that has the ability to make its own decisions. It has got a board. In fact, we have regional Trillium boards that are set up throughout this province, the grant review teams, that take into account the local needs of the communities before making the decision.

Mr. Speaker, we’re about providing opportunity on this side of the House. When we see Canada 150 coming up, we’re proud to invest in that initiative and we’re so proud of the fact that we’ll be investing into infrastructure. You can tell your Legion to contact us directly when those grants come out, and they can apply for funding to increase infrastructure right across this province. We’re very proud of our record.

Minimum wage

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the Premier. It is the responsibility of government to lift people up, to make life better and to make sure that people no longer have to work multiple jobs simply to make ends meet. In Ontario, over 750,000 workers are taking home a minimum wage that is simply too low to help anyone get ahead. Right now, we’re seeing a powerful movement south of the border that has workers standing up and saying, “It’s time for a $15 minimum wage.”

Premier, New Democrats say that it’s time to raise the floor for every worker in this province. Will the Liberal government commit to raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour for all Ontarians?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Labour.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. Thank you.

The Premier went to the Minister of Labour.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Speaker, the NDP’s sudden interest in the minimum wage certainly is welcome on this side of the House. It’s been a long time coming.

We’ve been working hard to bring minimum wage increases that are consistent, are predictable and are fair to the people in this province. Between 1996 and 2003, the general minimum wage in Ontario was frozen, for nine long years, at $6.85. We knew we could do better than that, Speaker.

We’ve made significant changes since then to the process. We’ve raised the minimum wage nine times. Nobody in North America has a higher minimum wage, other than the District of Columbia. No state has the minimum wage that Ontario has. Ontario has the highest of any province in this country.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Back to the Premier: At the rate that the Liberals are raising the minimum wage, it will be 2037 before we hit $15 an hour—and by the way, they just did it in California, so the minister’s wrong about that.

Ontario’s New Democrats want to make it clear that the Liberals won’t stand up for Ontarians and that Ontarians will have a choice to make in two short years to elect one that absolutely will. Fundamental change is needed to address a fundamentally changing workplace.

Premier, what does the government have to say to the hundreds of thousands of Ontarians that are not getting the decent wages they deserve for the hard work that they do every day?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Once again I want to thank the member and I want to thank the party for the interest in this issue. Certainly, it’s long overdue, but it’s a conversation that we wish we’d had them on board on a little while ago.

Let me reiterate: We’ve got the highest minimum wage of any province in Canada, higher than any state. With guidance, we’ve put together a Minimum Wage Advisory Panel. We’ve got guidance from business, from labour—

Hon. Jeff Leal: Anti-poverty.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: —anti-poverty groups. The NDP made not one single submission to that panel. When you had the opportunity to speak out, you were silent.

Certainly, I think, we can look to the province of Ontario as an example of how you can put in predictable wage increases for people on minimum wage.

In 2019, Speaker, part of the process calls for a review of the process. If we need to do more at that time, I hope this House will.

First responders

Mrs. Kathryn McGarry: My question is for the Minister of Labour. Minister, yesterday was a very special day for this Legislature. We were joined by first responders from across the province, including my community of Cambridge.

As a former nurse in the emergency department, I worked closely with first responders and gained first-hand knowledge of what they face while doing their job. These dedicated women and men put themselves in harm’s way every day, and it can take a toll on their mental health. Yesterday and over the course of this year, they eagerly participated in the legislative process in order to see Bill 163 turn into law.

I was thrilled to see that the Supporting Ontario’s First Responders Act received the support of every member of this Legislature. It was great to see all members on all sides of the House be able to stand forward for this very important bill.

Speaker, through you to the minister, how will this impact the lives of Ontario first responders?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you.

Minister of Labour?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I, too, would like to thank the member for that question.

I think, especially on a day like this, I’d like to show my appreciation to all the members of the Legislature who participated in the debate, who joined the conversation on post-traumatic stress disorder and who are starting to talk more and more about mental health in the workplace.

This bill is something we should all be proud of. It shows what we’re capable of when we work together. I think the specifics of Bill 163 are well known throughout this House. Members have participated. It’s going to presume that post-traumatic stress disorder diagnosed in first responders is work-related. It’s going to allow me, as the Minister of Labour, to ensure that employers of those first responders submit their prevention plans directly to me, and I will make them public.

What I want to focus on is what this really means: We need to deal with people that have PTSD in a dignified way, but we need to prevent it in the first place.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mrs. Kathryn McGarry: I would like to thank the minister for his work and his dedication on Bill 163. It’s important—

Mr. Paul Miller: Thank you, Cheri.

Mrs. Kathryn McGarry: It’s important that we are taking steps to help first responders to get the help that they need.

I know another large part of this issue is prevention. As we know, first responders are twice as likely to suffer from PTSD than the general population, and it’s often the accumulation of incidents that causes PTSD symptoms in the first place. We must ensure that supports are in place to help prevent PTSD. It’s also important that employers have the resources they need to identify PTSD and support those who may suffer.

Over the weekend, I heard an ad on the radio that addressed this issue. Increasing awareness of PTSD helps families and friends of first responders to recognize possible symptoms.

Speaker, through you to the minister: What is the government doing to prevent PTSD and to support first responders?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek yelled out, “Thanks, Cheri,” and I think we do need to thank the member from Parkdale–High Park for the work that she has done on this issue.

Applause.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you. But I hope all members have also started to hear the awareness campaign that’s taking place: the radio ads, we’ve got guidance out there for employers, it’s online. You can go online. You can have the smallest fire department in this province and you’ll have access to the same resources as the biggest police department in this province. What we’re doing is making sure that we get as much information on post-traumatic stress disorder and how to prevent it out to employers in this province.

I committed to making Ontario a leader in this regard. As a result of the vote yesterday, I think all members of Ontario deserve credit for making us that leader.

Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry on a point of order.

Hon. Bill Mauro: Speaker, thank you very much. If I could just slightly out of order introduce Ms. Peggy Brekveld, the vice-president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, from my riding of Thunder Bay–Atikokan. Thank you.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Etobicoke Centre?

Mr. Yvan Baker: Thank you, Speaker. I beg your indulgence.

I just wanted to introduce the students from Kipling Collegiate Institute, under the leadership of teacher Tom Ferguson, who are here with us at Queen’s Park. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Correction of record

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Newmarket–Aurora.

Mr. Chris Ballard: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A couple of weeks ago, I introduced Nick Saul by the title of his former company. Nick Saul is actually president and CEO of Community Food Centres Canada.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): There are no deferred votes. This House stands recessed until 3 p.m.

The House recessed from 1142 to 1500.

Introduction of Visitors

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: My guests are not here, but I know that a lot of friends have been wondering when I would bring my daughter. She is here, so I will be around outside once we are done here.

How’s that for an introduction of guests, Speaker?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Far be it from me to interrupt an introduction of a baby.

Members’ Statements

Cancer care

Mr. Jeff Yurek: I am rising today to highlight Daffodil Month and cancer awareness during April.

As many of you know, April is the month when we proudly wear our daffodil pins to show our strength and courage for those battling or who have battled cancer. The Canadian Cancer Society has done a tremendous job raising funds for life-saving research, information and support services to help end this terrible disease.

In 2015, Ontario saw 76,000 new cancer cases and 28,500 deaths. Prostate cancer, breast cancer, colorectal cancer and lung cancer are the most prominent in Ontario.

Throughout the month of April, the Canadian Cancer Society will be doing daffodil pinnings across the province in order to promote cancer awareness. This afternoon I was pleased t